JUDGMENT : K Sreenivasa Reddy, J. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A, filed by the appellant herein/ Insurance Company, is to the Award, dated 03.02.2011, in M.V.O.P. No.37 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – Additional District Judge, Hindupur (‘Tribunal’ for short), whereunder the Tribunal, partly allowed the claim for compensation made by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein/claimants for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, on account of the death of one P.Venkata Narisi Reddy (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’), in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 11.08.2009. 2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to, as described before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal, in brief, according to the averments set out in the Motor Vehicle accident claims, is that: 1st claimant is wife and claimant Nos.2 and 3 are sons, of the deceased. On 11.08.2009 at about 9.00 a.m., the deceased along with one Gurram Konda Venkata Rangappa and Gangadhar, proceeded to Chilamattur by his Hero Honda motorcycle; when they reached near Reddicheruvu Katta, one Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.KA40 K 5406 coming from Gorantla side, with high speed, rash and negligently, hit the deceased motorcycle; as a result, all the three members fell down on the road; the deceased sustained grievous injury to his head and there was bleeding from his ear and nostril and died on the spot; One Gurram Konda Venkata Rangappa and Gangadhar, who travelled along with the deceased on his motorcycle, witnessed the incident. The accident was reported to Gorantla Police Station and a case was registered. The deceased was a contractor and businessman and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month; the deceased was also having Ac.15.00 cents of land. The deceased was the only breadwinner of his entire family, but due to the sudden demise of the deceased in a road traffic accident, the claimants lost their sole breadwinner. Respondent No.1 is the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle, 2nd respondent is insurer of the offending vehicle. By the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2. As such, they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4. Respondent No.1 filed counter denying the contents of the claim petition. Respondent No.1 is the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle, 2nd respondent is insurer of the offending vehicle. By the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2. As such, they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4. Respondent No.1 filed counter denying the contents of the claim petition. It is contended that the respondent No.1 drove the vehicle at normal speed, but the deceased drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and caused the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition. 5. Respondent No.2/insurer of the offending vehicle filed counter denying the contents of the petition. It is contended that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. The offending vehicle has no valid Registration Certificate and it was driven by a person, having no valid driving license at the time of the accident. Therefore, the liability to pay compensation to the claimants is to be fastened on the insured but not on the insurer. The claim of the claimants is exaggerated for the purpose of the petition. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for inquiry: (1) Whether the accident had happened on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Hero Honda bearing No.KA40 K 5406? (2) Whether the offending Hero Honda rider was holding valid driving license at the time of the accident? (3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from which of the respondents? (4) Whether the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive, abnormal and unjust? (5) To what relief? 7. During inquiry, 2nd claimant, son of the deceased, was examined as P.W.1, apart from examining P.W.2, who is the eyewitness to the accident and got exhibited Exs.A1 to A9. On behalf of the respondent No.1, he was examined as R.W.1 and got exhibited Exs.B1 to B4. 8. On consideration of the evidence placed before it, the Tribunal, on issue Nos.1 and 2 held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. In respect of issue Nos.3 and 4, the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.3,62,000/-. 8. On consideration of the evidence placed before it, the Tribunal, on issue Nos.1 and 2 held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. In respect of issue Nos.3 and 4, the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.3,62,000/-. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition of the claimants and directed the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to deposit the awarded sum with interest at 6% per annum. The Tribunal apportioned the compensation among the claimants and permitted them to withdraw their respective shares. Aggrieved of the same, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company preferred the appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company contended that the rider of the offending vehicle is not responsible for the accident and the deceased was the responsible for the accident, and that as it was collision of two vehicles, therefore, contributory negligence has to be applied. It is the further contention of respondent No.2/Insurance Company that the income of the deceased is to be assessed notionally at Rs.3,000/- per month as there is no reliable evidence. Hence, it is prayed to allow the appeal by setting-aside the impugned Award passed by the Tribunal. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the evidence brought on record proved that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle, and due to the said act, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to them thereafter and therefore, the respondent No.2/insurer of the offending vehicle is equally liable to pay the compensation. The judgment of the Tribunal is a well-reasoned one and it does not require any interference of this Court. Hence, they request to dismiss the appeal. 11. Now, in deciding the present M.A.C.M.A., the point for determination is whether the Order and Decree, dated 03.02.2011 in M.V.O.P.No.37 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Hindupur in awarding the compensation of Rs.3,62,000/-, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? POINT: 12. There is no dispute with regard to occurrence of the subject accident and death of the deceased in the said accident. The claimants, to establish the manner of occurrence of the accident, examined the eyewitness viz. G.Venkatarangappa as P.W.2, before the learned Tribunal. POINT: 12. There is no dispute with regard to occurrence of the subject accident and death of the deceased in the said accident. The claimants, to establish the manner of occurrence of the accident, examined the eyewitness viz. G.Venkatarangappa as P.W.2, before the learned Tribunal. P.W.2 in his evidence deposed that on 11.08.2009 at about 8.30 a.m., he called the deceased as an elder person to make partition of his joint family property. He further deposed that he along with his brother and the deceased, proceeded on a motorcycle; at about 9.00 a.m., when they reached near Reddicheruvu Katta, rider of the offending vehicle, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the deceased motorcycle, as a result, P.W.2, his brother and the deceased fell down at the left side of the road. His evidence further reveals that the deceased sustained head injury and died on the spot. 13. In the cross-examination of P.W.2, it is elicited that the deceased was the owner of the motorcycle driven by him, on which he sat as pillion-rider. He denied the suggestion that the deceased drove the motorcycle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the offending vehicle and that the offending vehicle is no way connected to the accident. He also denied the suggestion that the deceased was not well-versed with the driving of motorcycle and he was responsible for the accident in question. Except the above, nothing is elicited in his cross-examination to disbelieve the version of P.W.2 that the deceased drove the motorcycle in correct manner and due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, the accident occurred and the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. 14. It is the contention of respondent No.2/Insurance Company that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased, as he drove the motorcycle by allowing two pillionriders and dashed the offending vehicle, and hence, the deceased was solely responsible for the accident. 15. A perusal of copy of Ex.A1-FIR reveals that P.W.2 preferred report to police on the date of the accident. Its contents reveal that the respondent No.1 drove the offending vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased vehicle, by which the deceased, along with P.W.2 and his brother, was proceeding to Chilamathur village. 15. A perusal of copy of Ex.A1-FIR reveals that P.W.2 preferred report to police on the date of the accident. Its contents reveal that the respondent No.1 drove the offending vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased vehicle, by which the deceased, along with P.W.2 and his brother, was proceeding to Chilamathur village. Ex.A.4-copy of Accident Report reveals that the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector of Puttaparthi, RTO Office, Hindupur inspected the offending vehicle and found multiple damages caused due to the accident. It further revealed that the foot brakes of the offending vehicle were efficient by the time of his inspection. He concluded that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defect of the offending vehicle. 16. A plain reading of Ex.A1 coupled with Ex.A4, it can be inferred that the respondent No.1 being the rider of the offending vehicle drove the same at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased motorcycle and caused his instantaneous death. The rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 is also spoken too by P.W.2, who is an eye witness to the accident and who travelled along with the deceased on his motorcycle at the time of the accident. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. 17. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is that, the respondent No.1, rider of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence at the time of the accident and therefore, the respondent No.2/ Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as adjudicated by the Tribunal. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to evidence of R.W.1, who is respondent No.1, rider of the offending vehicle. He deposed in his evidence that is having valid driving licence to drive two-wheeler at the time of the accident. He exhibited Ex.B2-driving licence. A perusal of Ex.B2, it reveals that respondent No.1 was authorized to drive Light Motor Vehicle and it is valid till 13.11.2027. Therefore, the contention of respondent No.2/Insurance Company that respondent No.1 was not having valid driving licence, does not hold much water. 18. 2nd claimant, son of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. In his examination in chief, he put-forth the facts in tune with the pleadings. Therefore, the contention of respondent No.2/Insurance Company that respondent No.1 was not having valid driving licence, does not hold much water. 18. 2nd claimant, son of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. In his examination in chief, he put-forth the facts in tune with the pleadings. During his examination, Exs.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked. Apparently, P.W.1 is not an eyewitness to the accident. His evidence revealed that the deceased was his father and at the time of the accident, the entire family was depending on the sole earning of the deceased. Nothing concrete was elicited in his crossexamination to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased died in a road traffic accident. A perusal of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is evident that the deceased sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident and succumbed to the same. 19. The evidence of P.W.2 coupled with the contents of Ex.A1, proves that due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the subject accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. The Tribunal rightly recorded its finding on this point. Indeed, the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2/insurer, which is evident under Ex.B4-copy of Insurance Policy. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal rightly fastened the liability on the respondent No.2/insurer of the offending vehicle along with the respondent No.1/owner of the offending vehicle directing them to pay the compensation to the claimants. 20. Coming to the quantum of compensation, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased was a contractor and also attending agriculture works and used to earn a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per year. The claimants filed Exs.A8 and A9, pattadar pass book and No.3 Adangal, respectively. A perusal of Exs.A8 and A9 reveals that the deceased was cultivating land to an extent of Ac.15.61 cents. 21. In Chandra Alias Chanda Alias Chandraram and another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and others (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 198, the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph No.9 held as thus: “In the absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and others (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 198, the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph No.9 held as thus: “In the absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality.” 22. Having regard to the above precedent and as the accident occurred in the year 2009 and assuming the cost of living by that time, the income of the deceased can be assessed at Rs.4,000/- per month. 23. Coming to the multiplier, the age of the deceased, as per Ex.A.2-Inquest Report and Ex.A3-Post-Mortem Certificate is 55 years and the deceased comes within the age group of 51-55 years. But, the Tribunal considered the age of the deceased as 50 years. Therefore, considering the age of the deceased as 55 years, as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and anothers Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others 2009 ACJ 1298 , the appropriate multiplier to be applied is ‘11’. Further, as there are four (03) dependants, 1/3rd of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 . If 1/3rd of the income is deducted, the contribution of the deceased to his family would come to Rs.2,667/- per month. Therefore, the loss of dependency is Rs.2,667/- per month x 12 months x 11 (Multiplier) = 3,52,044/-, rounded of to Rs.3,52,000/-. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.3,52,000/- is to be awarded to the claimants towards compensation for loss of dependency. 24. The Tribunal, in all, awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, transport expenses and loss of love and affection. Indeed, the claimant No.1, being the wife of the deceased, is entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards compensation loss of consortium, as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others (2018) 18 SCC 130 . Indeed, the claimant No.1, being the wife of the deceased, is entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards compensation loss of consortium, as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others (2018) 18 SCC 130 . Therefore, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded to claimant No.1 towards compensation for loss of consortium. 25. In respect of other conventional heads i.e. Funeral Expenses, the Tribunal did not award any compensation. As per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi case (supra), the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards ‘Funeral Expenses’ and Rs.15,000/- towards ‘Loss of Estate’. Therefore, the claimants are awarded to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for loss of estate. In all, the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs.70,000/- under the conventional heads. 26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the claimants are entitled to the compensation under Section 166 of the Act as follows: Sl. No. Description of the head Amount awarded in Rs. 1. Loss of dependency 3,52,000-00 2. Loss of Consortium 40,000-00 3. Loss of Estate 15,000-00 4. Funeral Expenses 15,000-00 TOTAL: 4,22,000-00 27. Admittedly, the Tribunal though assessed the compensation amount that was entitled by the claimants, awarded the interest at 6% per annum. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mannat Johal 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC) the claimants are entitled to interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. 28. Coming to liability, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, respondent No.1 drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased vehicle and caused his instantaneous death. The respondent No.1, rider of the offending vehicle holds valid driving license and therefore, there was no breach of condition of the insurance policy. Therefore, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, but to be indemnified by respondent No.2, being the insurer of the offending vehicle. 29. The respondent No.1, rider of the offending vehicle holds valid driving license and therefore, there was no breach of condition of the insurance policy. Therefore, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, but to be indemnified by respondent No.2, being the insurer of the offending vehicle. 29. Though, the appeal has been preferred by respondent No.2/ Insurance Company against the negligent aspect, by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, appreciating the same in toto, this Court while confirming the negligence aspect as reached by the Tribunal, re-appreciating the evidence invoking Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘CPC’) and Section 151 CPC and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.4,22,000/-. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are benevolent in nature and what is required to be awarded is just and reasonable compensation. Therefore, even in the absence of appeal/crossappeal by the claimants, this Court has got power and jurisdiction to enhance the compensation, which has been recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 274. Accordingly, this point is answered. 30. In the result, the Appeal in MACMA No.1332 of 2012 filed by the appellant/respondent No.2 is dismissed, enhancing the compensation awarded in the Award of the Tribunal passed in M.V.O.P.No.37 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Hindupur from Rs.3,62,000/- with interest at 6% per annum to Rs.4,22,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. 31. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within six (06) weeks from the date of the judgment after deducting the amount if any, already deposited. 32. On such deposit, 1st claimant being the wife of the deceased is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,52,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs and fifty two thousand only). The claimants No.2 and 3 being the sons of the deceased, are entitled to an amount of Rs.85,000/- (Rupees eighty five thousand) each. The claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective apportioned amounts along with accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.